Motivation in learning. II. The function of electric shock for right and wrong responses in human subjects.

Muenzinger, Karl F.

doi:10.1037/h0075998

Cited by 38 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Elsewhere attention has been called to the fact that there are no significant differences between the original shock and the auditory signal groups (Groups II and III respectively). This is in agreement with the findings of Tolman et al (12) and Muenzinger (11). Both investigators, using a 'punch-board maze' having thirty pairs of holes, report that there are no significant differences between the groups learning with shock and bell for error, and those learning with bell alone.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

“…However, failure of shock for error to facilitate learning has been reported in cases where a ' punchboard maze' was employed and the shock was given in addition to the customary bell or buzzer sound as a signal for error. Tolman, Hall and Bretnall (12), and Muenzinger (11) have reported such negative findings and Crafts and Gilbert (2), while reporting superior achievement for a group of subjects learning the traditional type of stylus maze with shock for error, found subsequently (3) that an auditory signal for error was quite as effective as the electric shock had been.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of non-informative shock upon maze learning and retention with human subjects.

Gilbert¹

1936

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of non-informative shock upon maze learning and retention with human subjects.

Gilbert¹

1936

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In rats, as in other sub-human subjects, shock after the point of choice invariably accelerates learning (6). In the present as well as in a previous experiment with human subjects (7) shock has no such effect. We do not claim that shock never has a facilitating effect in human learning.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 66%

Motivation in learning: IX. The effect of interposed obstacles in human learning.

Muenzinger¹,

Vine²

1941

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Delays may also have been aversive. When punishment is employed in discrimination training, subjects respond more slowly and attend more carefully to stimulus features (Barlow, 1933;Muenzinger, 1934aMuenzinger, , 1934b, and discriminated performance improves (Getsie, Langer, & Glass, 1985;Harris & Tramontana, 1973;F. Miller, Moffat, Cotter, & Ochocki, 1973).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Imposed Postfeedback Delays in Programmed Instruction

Crosbie

Kelly

1994

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Imposed postfeedback delays promote discrimination training; the present experiments determined whether they also improve performance in programmed instruction. In two experiments, college students completed 45 sets of Holland and Skinner's (1961) programmed text on behavior analysis in a computerized format in a three-component multiple schedule. In Experiment 1, the conditions were (a) no delay between questions, (b) a 10-s delay after each question (noncontingent delay), and (c) a 10-s delay after each question answered incorrectly (contingent delay). Noncontingent delay produced better performance than no delay and contingent delay. To determine whether performance increased in the noncontingent delay condition because subjects studied the material during delay periods, Experiment 2 tested three conditions: (a) no delay between questions, (b) a 10-s delay after each question (noncontingent delay), and (c) a 10-s delay after each question with the screen blank during the delay period. Noncontingent delay produced better performance than no delay, but there was no difference in performance between no delay and noncontingent delay with blank screen. Hence, noncontingent delay improved performance because students used delay periods to study. Furthermore, subjects preferred noncontingent delay to the other conditions, and session time increased only slightly.DESCRIPTORS: computer-based instruction, programmed instruction, multiple schedule, delay, college students Programmed instruction is discrimination training: Learners examine a stimulus, emit a response, receive feedback, and consequently make appropriate responses in the presence of novel stimuli (Skinner, 1954(Skinner, , 1968. Several researchers have obtained superior discriminated performance with college students when delays were imposed after feedback on concept-identification tasks (e.g., Bourne, 1957;Bourne & Bunderson, 1963;Bourne, Guy, Dodd, & Justesen, 1965;White & Schmidt, 1972). In a typical study (Bourne, 1957), subjects were presented with geometric patterns that had seven dimensions, but only two were necessary for correct dassification. Subjects reported which combination of dimensions was correct (e.g., largeThe present experiments were supported by grants from Deakin University's Internal and Science Research Budgets. We are grateful to Linda Blackman, Suzanne Brown, Sezen Ildiri, and Jo Taraborrelli for collecting the data in Experiment 1; Andrew Eltringham for helping to prepare test items;and Phil Chase and Mike Perone for helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.Reprint requests should be sent to John Crosbie, who is now at the Department of Psychology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506-6040. square, large triangle, small square, or small triangle). After all stimulus patterns had been presented, subjects pressed one of four unlabeled keys that corresponded to the four possible combinations of relevant dimensions. Following a delay between o s and 8 s, a light was illuminated above the corre...

show abstract

Motivation in learning. II. The function of electric shock for right and wrong responses in human subjects.

Cited by 38 publications

References 6 publications

The effect of non-informative shock upon maze learning and retention with human subjects.

The effect of non-informative shock upon maze learning and retention with human subjects.

Motivation in learning: IX. The effect of interposed obstacles in human learning.

Effects of Imposed Postfeedback Delays in Programmed Instruction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About